Kasper and the recent CDF document
In recent days, Walter Cardinal Kasper, has been accused (falsely) of being “an antagonist of Pope Benedict XVI” and of leaving “something to be desired” largely in reaction to his recent statement following the release of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith’s recent document, Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church.
Kasper’s statement, entitled “An Invitation to Dialogue”, is a very simple and concise outlook at the effect the CDF document may have on ecumenical relations with Protestant communities. Kasper is optimistic, reminding Protestant groups that “the document does not say anything new.” However, to understand the CDF document’s purpose, content and proper context, Kasper advocates a “second, quiet” and “thorough” reading of the text. This recommendation extends to Catholics, as well. To the two bloggers to whom I refer above, I recommend a “quiet and thorough” reading of Kasper’s remarks, Kasper’s previous work in his capacity in the Roman Curia, Kasper’s own personal theological reflections on ecumenism, and the Catholic Church’s statements and degrees on the relationship between ecclesiology and ecumenism. Within this context, describing Kasper as a “liberal” or a “progressive,” or even as “antagonistic” to the Pope is grossly unjust and seems to suggest an ignorance of the Catholic Church’s understanding of ecumenism, evangelization and mission.
In an earlier statement by Kasper in 2001, which he issued in response to the misinterpretation of Dominus Iesus by both Catholics and non-Catholics alike, Kasper touched on something very important. He diagnoses the root of the problem: “This misunderstanding can be avoided if the Declaration is read and interpreted – as any magisterial document should- in the larger context of all other official documents and declarations, which are by no means cancelled, revoked or nullified by this document.” So whenever Catholics seek to provide informed commentary on documents such as Dominus Iesus, Nostra Aetate or statements from Kasper, they must read them within the totality of the greater context of magisterial and curial teachings on ecclesiology, ecumenism and mission. Trying to read either Dominus Iesus or “Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church” without this context can lead to some rather one-sided and even erroneous interpretations of these documents. Indeed, treating any CDF document in a monist or isolated fashion can lead to poor results.
The reason, perhaps, that such interpretations arise and such accusations are levelled toward Kasper is because neither the relevant CDF documents nor Kasper’s statements are read against the backdrop of the fuller treatments at hand. Neither Dominus Iesus nor “Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church” stated anything new and created no new situation for the ecumenical, evangelical and missionary efforts of the Catholic Church. In fact, this most recent document from the CDF explicitly refers to the contextual magisterial documents in its opening paragraphs, indicating that these documents are the hermeneutic key to illumine the purpose and meaning of the CDF document. These documents are essential for understanding the Church’s teaching: Vatican II’s Lumen gentium, Unitatis redintegratio, Orientalium Ecclesiarum; Pope Paul VI’s Ecclesium Suam and Mysterium Fidei; Pope John Paul II’s Ut unum sint; CDF’s Communionis notio and Dominus Iesus. Taken together, we find that both Kasper and the CDF are speaking in continuity with the ecumenical programmatic of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar popes.
Regrettably, I have not yet seen the more widely-read Catholic blogs interpreting this document accordingly, which has likely contributed to their suspicion of Kasper’s efforts. Not only is this a disservice to those who read blogs and are otherwise unfamiliar with the discussion, but it is also sinful because it casts a cleric of the Church and a first-rate theologian in an unflattering light without due cause. I hope to see that some Catholic bloggers are, indeed, interpreting these documents properly rather than wrecklessly posting knee-jerk commentary.
Kasper on the Jews
There is also the delicate question, frequently addressed by Kasper, on the relationship of the Jews to the Catholic Church. Kasper has described the Jewish faith as “salvific” on several occassions. Regrettably, many Catholics have misread these statements–likely due to having little theological reading under their belt–and contorted them into suggesting that the Jews can be saved simply by being Jewish. But such an interpretation is far too heavy for Kasper’s words to bear. The covenants of God with Israel are stages in “salvation history,” which means that each covenant reveals or discloses the salvific plan of God for humanity, sanctifying those with whom the covenant is made. That said, Kasper’s use of “salvific” is really quite simple: the Jews already participate in salvation history by means of their covenants with God (cf. Romans 9-11). Vatican II expressly stated that the Jews are “most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentence,” that they are included in “the plan of salvation” (Lumen gentium, no.16), and that the “Church of Christ acknowledges that in God’s plan of salvation the beginning of her faith and election is to be found in the patriarachs, Moses and the prophets” (Nostra Aetate, no. 4). Salvation history does not begin with Jesus, yet it is fulfilled with Jesus, who said himself “Salvation comes from the Jews” (John 4:22). Thus, Jews, by virtue of their covenants with God, participate in the salvific plan for humanity in a way wholly unlike any other non-Christian faith. The Jews are already “on the way” to Christ, so to speak, and so evangelization of the Jews is an altogether different affair than evangelization of, and mission to, members of other faiths.
However, the covenants of Israel coalesce and culminate in Jesus, so salvation is a full reality only through faith in Jesus the Christ. The chosen people of God, the Jews, are predisposed as a people for receiving Christ as their Messiah. But that final step of faith into the fulfilled covenant of the blood of God is still necessary, and Kasper has never denied this.
In fact, before Kasper was named President of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, Pope John Paul II had already desribed Judaism as a religion that is not to be portrayed as a faith outside or detached from Catholicism: “The Jewish religion is not ‘extrinsic’ to us, but in a certain way is ‘intrinsic’ to our own religion. With Judaism, therefore, we have a relationship which we do not have any other religion” (Speech to the Jewish Community in Rome, no. 4). Because the Church has received by inheritance from the Jews the salvific self-disclosure of God through revelation, Judaism has a unique and privileged relationship to the Church. Indeed, Judaism is root of Christianity (cf. John Paul II, Meeting with the Representatives of World Religions and Religious Leaders, no. 4).
Cardinal Kasper drinks deeply from the precedence set by Vatican II and Popes Paul VI and John Paul II in Christian relations with the Jews. It is tragic the true reality of Kaspers position on the Jews is so forcefully distorted and convolved by those who crave to comment before seeking the right information.
Kasper and “Converting” Protestants
I recall two previous quotes from Kasper that turn up here and there in the blogosphere, often used to demonstrate Kasper’s “progressive” outlook or even his outright “apostasy.” Here are the quotes I’ve repeatedly encountered:
“Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”
“The Catholic commitment to ecumenism is not based on wanting to draw all Christians into the Catholic fold, nor does it seek to create a new church, drawing on the best of each of the ecumenical partners.”
Whenever we seek to understand the context of a quote, we situate it within its greater context by looking to the entire speech from which the quote is taken. This is a basic hermeneutic principle that no one will dispute. However, when we are dealing with speeches as opposed to articles or books, we must also look to the context in which the speech is given. Otherwise, we risk attributing to the speaker a universal intent when, perhaps, the speaker was responding to a particular issue, in a particular setting in the presence of a particular audience. In the case of Cardinal Kasper, the first quote cited came from an address given at Ushaw College. Now, anyone who has attended a lecture delivered by a scholar in a university context knows that the setting tends to permit a highly intellectual level of discourse where the speaker is at liberty to assume that his audience is familiar enough with the terms of the issue. Thus, we must be cautious when extracting a single quote from a university address lest we give the impression that the speech was intended for all people to hear and scandal arise.
The second of Kasper’s two quotes interests me most, as it has others in the discussion over Kasper’s intent, clarity and even orthodoxy. The quote comes from a public Italian periodical, which means Kasper’s comments would be immediately accessible to the general public. Thus, it is important that we seek to understand the meaning behind Kasper’s words before hastily castigating the Cardinal for what we may perceive to be ambiguous or possibly heretical language.
One of the contributors to the discussion stated that this quote may imply universalism. We can rule that out immediately as nonsense. The limit of the quote is clearly Protestant and Orthodox Christianity, so even if Kasper were admitting that non-Catholic Christians can be saved by means of their own traditions, he is not stating anything about the salvific efficacy of non-Christian religions. Universalism, roughly speaking, is the idea that all religions are salvific by their own merits and on their own terms. Because Kasper relays nothing about other religions but confines his comment to Christianity, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that the Cardinal implies universalism or that his words lend themselves to such an interpretation. Rather, to suggest that this quote can be construed as universalism is an indictment, not on Kasper, but on the individual who is so uninformed and doctrinally inept that any suggestion of merit in regard to non-Catholic Christianity reeks of universalism. Such a person may want to consider enrolling in catechesis.
Okay, so Kasper is not a universalist and has never once opened himself up to being labeled as one. For those still with a conscious (or even unconscious) suspicion of all things Kasper, I refer them to his writings, which are the best guide to his thought. On the issue of ecumenism, get it straight from the horse’s mouth and read the highly engaging, highly accessible That they All May Be One: The Call to Unity.
Let’s return to that second quote once more. When Kasper informs us that “ecumenism is not based on wanting to draw all Christians into the Catholic fold,” is Kasper undermining the call to conversion? Isn’t conversion the entire basis for ecumenism? Is Kasper denying this? Yes, he is, though not directly. For Kasper, ecumenism is not founded on the desire to convert others to Catholicism. This is in harmony with the teaching of the Catholic Church. But how?
It’s important, essential even, to be clear and precise with our ecclesial language. Kasper, despite allegations to the contrary, is typically precise and unambiguous in his use of ecclesial terminology. Ecumenism and evangelization are not the same, and we must make that distinction. While evangelization may certainly accompany ecumenism and even guide and follow it, evangelization is not coextensive with ecumenism, and the Cardinal is clear on this.
The basis of evangelization is desire to convert others–conversion to Christ, conversion to his Church, conversion to God. The basis of ecumenism, however, is something else. Consider the words of the Second Vatican Council:
“The term ‘ecumenical movement’ indicates the initiatives and activities encouraged and organized, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities to offer, to promote Christian unity. These are: first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethern with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult. Then, ‘dialogue’ between competent experts from different Churches and communities; in their meetings, which are organized in a religious spirit, each explains the teaching of his communion in greater depth and brings out clearly its distinctive features. Through such dialogue everyone gains a truer knowledge and more just appreciation of the teaching and religious life of both communions. In addition, these communions engage in that more intensive cooperation in carrying out any duties for the common good of humanity which are demanded by every Christian conscience. They also come together for common prayer, where this is permitted. Finally, all are led to examine their own faithfulness to Christ’s will for the Church and, wherever necessary, undertake vigor the task of renewal and reform.”
“The results will be that, little by little, as the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical commuion are overcome, all Christians will be gathered, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, into the unity of the one and only Church, which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning. “
“In ecumenical work, Catholics must assuredly be concerned for their separated brethern, praying for them, keeping them informed about the Church, making the first approaches toward them. But their primary duty is to make a careful and honest appraisal of whatever needs to be renewed and done in the Catholic household itself, in order that its life may bear witness more clearly and faithfully to the teachings and institutions which have been handed down from Christ through the apostles.” (Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 4).
For those who find the official position of the magisterium obtuse or esoteric, perhaps the Catechism of the Catholic Church‘s summary of the magisterial position may be more palatable:
“Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. . . . The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.
Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call:
a permanent renewal of the Church. . .; conversion of heart. . .; prayer in common. . .; fraternal knowledge of each other. . .; ecumenical formation. . .; dialogue. . .; collaboration among Christians. . .” (CCC, nos. 820-21).
And so when Cardinal Kasper informs us that “ecumenism is not based on wanting to draw all Christians into the Catholic fold,” he is accurately describing what ecumenism is not. Ecumenism has as its basis the desire for unity and as its practice the removal of obstacles to that unity. It seeks not to convert those who are already converted to Christ. Rather, in nuanced fashion, ecumenism seeks to renew the Catholic Church from within so that it may be a sacrament of Christ’s love, to dialogue with other Christians in order to educate and correct each party involved, and to work together to transform the world. Ecumenism seeks to understand, not to convert.
Perhaps one can say that the drive for unity is the drive for conversion in a very loose sense, but such is not the manner in which the Catholic Church has portrayed ecumenism. The drive behind ecumenism is not to draw Protestants and Orthodox into the Catholic Church. The drive is to remove the obstacles to unity so that Protestants and Orthodox have no reason to remain divided or alienated from the fullness of the Church of which they are already a part, albeit imperfectly. And this includes the humble housekeeping within the Catholic Church so that it is truly an example of holiness and a worthy recipient of the esteem of other Christians.
This is why the Catholic Church shapes ecumenism only in terms of non-Catholic Christian communions. We do not speak of ecumenism with non-Christian faiths. Rather, we speak of evangelization; hence, the Second Vatican Council devoted one decree specifically to ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and two separate decrees to evangelization of other religions (Nostra aetate and Ad gentes divinitus). Why? Why doesn’t the Church speak of evangelizing or converting other Christians in the same way as she does for non-Christians?
Protestantism is not like any other religion whereby Catholics must convert their adherents to an entirely new understanding of divinity. As Kasper rightly notes (and he has written extensively on ecumenism), Protestantism is a peculiar challenge to Catholicism today. In the days of Trent, the bishops felt that the phenomenon of Protestantism would be short-lived once it was kicked in the pants by a nice anathema. Today, however, we understand that Protestantism is stronger than ever. Most Protestants and most Protestant denominations, as Kasper frequently notes and so does the Second Vatican Council, were never Catholic to begin with. Hence, there would be no return to Catholicism for them. Protestants, as even the illustrious Pope Pius XII noted in his glorious encyclical Mystici Corporis, which has a basis for Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium (to which Kasper often refers), may be part of the mystical body that is the Church, albeit in a deficient and incomplete way.
Thus, anyone who has actually read Kasper’s books on ecclesiology and ecumenism knows that what Kasper means by “Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘catholics'” is that Catholics themselves can adapt to certain trends in Protestantism that had been neglected for hundreds of years (e.g. services in the vernacular, good preaching, dedication to Scripture study). Think of how much converts such as Richard Neuhaus, Scott Hahn and Avery Dulles have changed the way Catholics think about their own traditions! At the same, the Catholic can help build on the foundations that a Protestant already holds (e.g. Jesus the Christ and Scripture), allowing the Protestant to see that the fullness of Christ’s truth subsists within the Catholic Church.
What Kasper means is that there is no “conversion” (turning from) to Christ necessary for most Protestants as there is for adherents of other religions. What Kasper has continually stressed is that Protestants need to undergo a deepening in understanding of the reality of Christ and his Church. Thus, we do not speak of a Protestant “converting” in the same sense as, say, a Hindu or a Muslim. As Pius XII and Vatican II have stated, and Kasper reiterates, many Protestants are joined mystically to the Body of Christ in a deficient and incomplete manner by virtue of their baptism in Christ. This is why we do not re-baptize Protestants when they enter into full communion with the Catholic Church unless they have not already been baptized properly. They are already baptized into the death of Christ and hold faith in him. Catholic evangelization to Protestants does not attempt to convert them to a Christ in whom they already believe, but attempts to deepen their understanding of Christ and his Church, which prompts their desire to enter into full communion with the Church.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In